• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:38
CEST 03:38
KST 10:38
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update The StarCraft 2 GOAT - An in-depth analysis The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time EWC 2025 details: $700k total prize; GSL, DH Dallas confirmed
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 673 users

Are Unions Necessary in the Modern World? - Page 17

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 15 16 17 18 19 Next All
Grumbels
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Netherlands7031 Posts
March 09 2011 09:25 GMT
#321
Slavery has economic benefits too. Purely analyzing it from that perspective is pointless, as moral issues are of higher importance. You can't look at the state of the economy and ignore income inequality, wealth should only matter if it can actually be aquired by more than the top few %.
Well, now I tell you, I never seen good come o' goodness yet. Him as strikes first is my fancy; dead men don't bite; them's my views--amen, so be it.
oldgregg
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand1176 Posts
March 09 2011 09:36 GMT
#322
well said sir
Calculatedly addicted to Substance D for profit by drug terrorists
dogabutila
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1437 Posts
March 09 2011 10:18 GMT
#323
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.
Baller Fanclub || CheAse Fanclub || Scarlett Fanclub || LJD FIGHTING!
ICA
Profile Joined January 2011
498 Posts
March 09 2011 10:19 GMT
#324
What trade unions do is creating unemployment. There is a trade-off between bargaining and unemployment. Sorry if this has already been said but I did not read the entire thread.
The problem is that unions only negotiate for people that are in the union and don't give a damn for anybody else. It works like this:
Unions negotiate higher wages, a shock occurs and people get laid off, now that there are less people in the union they don't care about outsiders and say that because there are now less worker every worker is worth more which gives further rise to wages; the result is that people who have been unemployed before and people that just now got unemployed will not find the jobs because firms now have to pay (unnecessarily) high wages and have no more space for employing additional labor.
Sure you need a way to keep up your wage with inflation and increased productivity but if you think about it the economy would not work/ grow if this weren't happening. People would not have the money to consume and invest -> less growth.
Pretty much a simple case to me.
And: I agree that trade unions have been necessary in the past but in todays world we do not need them and would be better off, especially since mostly all developed countries (of which we speak here only I guess) don't have problems with inflation anymore.
smokeyhoodoo
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1021 Posts
March 09 2011 10:40 GMT
#325
On March 09 2011 18:23 Severedevil wrote:
Property is an odd beast. It's obvious why a person who makes a thing should get to decide who can have that thing. But land and natural resources have no inherent owner.


The traditional justification for someone owning land is the labor they put into it. ie. a family that has farmed the same piece of land for 5 generations owns it, or something of this sort. That would only determine initial ownership though, its then free to be traded. This was the rationale behind the homesteading act.
There is no cow level
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-09 10:41:46
March 09 2011 10:40 GMT
#326
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.

your whole point is based on the assumption that government works for the people. many people beg to differ and even more are saying that the governmet works for the corporations.

what will you do when the government doesnt represent the interest of the people?
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
meadbert
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States681 Posts
March 09 2011 13:55 GMT
#327
On March 09 2011 18:25 Grumbels wrote:
Slavery has economic benefits too. %.

Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor.
Craton
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States17250 Posts
March 09 2011 14:29 GMT
#328
I love all the absolutes being thrown around with nothing to back up the claims.
twitch.tv/cratonz
Jermstuddog
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2231 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-09 14:32:30
March 09 2011 14:31 GMT
#329
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.


Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality.

You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity.

Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway.
As it turns out, marines don't actually cost any money -Jinro
simme123
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Sweden810 Posts
March 09 2011 14:34 GMT
#330
They will always be necessary so that the workers can be protected. Yes they may demand more but it's better for everyone if everyone gets a decent salary and acceptable work hours.

Even in a modern society companies try to cut corners as much as they can but unions prevent them of going overboard in a way which is great.
Wazabo
Profile Joined October 2010
Italy124 Posts
March 09 2011 14:38 GMT
#331
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.


Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality.

You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity.

Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway.


Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes.
SharkSpider
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada606 Posts
March 09 2011 14:40 GMT
#332
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 18:25 Grumbels wrote:
Slavery has economic benefits too. %.

Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor.

Not in theory, at least. If you took an exact copy of the US, but every noncontributor (homeless or wellfare w/o dependents) worked slave labour for the government, it would have more infrastructure growth without a decline anywhere else, meaning a stronger economy. (Note: not actually suggesting we do this, don't want to go down that road here)
Rashid
Profile Joined March 2011
191 Posts
March 09 2011 14:42 GMT
#333
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 18:25 Grumbels wrote:
Slavery has economic benefits too. %.

Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor.



What do you mean slavery doesn't have economic benefits? I consider having a workforce that i can force and abuse without having to pay for as a great benefit. That's how the Pharoahs get to have their sweet sweet pyramids thousands of years ago, and thats how Nike gets to sell you shoes at a third the cost today.
SharkSpider
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada606 Posts
March 09 2011 14:45 GMT
#334
On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.


Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality.

You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity.

Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway.


Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes.

This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not)
Wazabo
Profile Joined October 2010
Italy124 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-09 15:13:03
March 09 2011 15:07 GMT
#335
On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.


Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality.

You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity.

Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway.


Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes.

This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not)


In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business.

By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side.
Rico Valon
Profile Joined February 2011
Germany3 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-09 15:26:43
March 09 2011 15:25 GMT
#336
Hi Guys,

nice discussion about unions is going on over here.

At first i got to say that im a unionist, aswelll in workers council at the company im working in.
Workers council is really accepted in this concern and its like giving and taking from each other.
The biggest reason for me to be in Union is the conflict of interest between the Company and Employe!

Im working in well paying company with 35h/week. And my target as unionist is to benefit from the profit of the firm im working in.
This must not be money for the Workers!

In germany the trade unions do a lot things e.g.

- job perservation
- safety and health in the workplace
- conditions of employment
- the take-over from trainees after apprenticeship
......

this makes life easyer for Employes and gives safety to their private life

if you know you wont be fired tomorrow, you maybe feel more well going to spend your money


I do know a lot of examples from Companies that neither got Workers council or a contract with a trade union
And in most of this examples workers did not get payed well, have no job perservation, no overtime gets payed, less vacations....

so in my oppinion unions are really need to represent the interests of the working class but also should not forget about the buisiness objectives.

Finally i got to say that i think the system how unions and workers council operate is a bit different in every country and i hope that i could gave you some good examples.

greeez

PS: don´t mess up because of my bad english

gozima
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada602 Posts
March 09 2011 15:27 GMT
#337
I've been living in Toronto for the past few years, and just recently found out that bus drivers here make ~100k/year. How fucked up is that?

I think the concept of Unions in great, but generally speaking, people or groups in positions of power will abuse those powers if they're able to.
SharkSpider
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada606 Posts
March 09 2011 15:28 GMT
#338
On March 10 2011 00:07 Wazabo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote:
On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote:
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote:
This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions.


The question is, what is the purpose of a union?
How does this union fit into government?

The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well.

This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose.

Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with.

Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base.

Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization.

Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No.


Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector.


Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality.

You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity.

Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway.


Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes.

This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not)


In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business.

By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side.

Income disparity and wealth disparity are hugely different measures. The latter is exclusively much, much higher than the former. Furthermore, at least in N.A., union workers' average pay is higher than the national average. This puts them squarely on the privileged side of wage disparity. If you account for the extra unemployment they bring about (in Canada estimates have been anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5% out of a typically ~10% unemployment rate), you account for the people forced on to wellfare and use that for a wage. I don't know what that would result in in Italy, but you might be surprised to see how little the rich actually impact average wages.
FiWiFaKi
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada9858 Posts
March 09 2011 15:41 GMT
#339
I think unions are stupid. They are a failed thing... I believe we do need unions, but they let the power get into their heads. Sorry 'bout the faul language, but they really bother me:

My dad is the manager of a Waste Water Treatment plant and he has several workers there that are totally lazy bastards who get to work and don't do shit at all, but he can't fire them because they are in a union. He also has a worker who was in a car accident and is paralyzed from neck down, and he isn't allowed to fire her either. It's simply ridicolous.

Workers have rights that need to be respected, but unions are the extremists of the western society. Unions need to be in the power of the government, because it's probably the hardest power to corrupt. Ofcourse the people that are lazy benefit from unions but overall it's just making a lazy lazy society that will whine about everything.
In life, the journey is more satisfying than the destination. || .::Entrepreneurship::. Living a few years of your life like most people won't, so that you can spend the rest of your life like most people can't || Mechanical Engineering & Economics Major
pfods
Profile Joined September 2010
United States895 Posts
March 09 2011 16:00 GMT
#340
On March 10 2011 00:41 Skillz_Man wrote:
I think unions are stupid. They are a failed thing... I believe we do need unions, but they let the power get into their heads. Sorry 'bout the faul language, but they really bother me:

My dad is the manager of a Waste Water Treatment plant and he has several workers there that are totally lazy bastards who get to work and don't do shit at all, but he can't fire them because they are in a union. He also has a worker who was in a car accident and is paralyzed from neck down, and he isn't allowed to fire her either. It's simply ridicolous.

Workers have rights that need to be respected, but unions are the extremists of the western society. Unions need to be in the power of the government, because it's probably the hardest power to corrupt. Ofcourse the people that are lazy benefit from unions but overall it's just making a lazy lazy society that will whine about everything.



probably the most generalizations i've yet to see in this thread. If they are in fact lazy, he should bring it to the attention of the union rep at the job. I also highly doubt the paralyzed thing, since people can fire union employees for far lesser injuries without the unions getting uppity. I highly doubt a fully paralyzed woman(requiring an aid at all times to be present)is some how working at a waste water treatment plant.
Prev 1 15 16 17 18 19 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 22m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 134
RuFF_SC2 49
NoRegreT_ 35
Vindicta 32
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3491
Sexy 26
Terrorterran 10
Icarus 6
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1059
Counter-Strike
Fnx 2718
Stewie2K543
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King233
Other Games
summit1g12316
tarik_tv11427
shahzam651
ViBE247
C9.Mang0218
JimRising 0
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick870
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 80
• davetesta38
• RyuSc2 26
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 75
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4679
• Stunt184
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
8h 22m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
12h 22m
CSO Cup
14h 22m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
16h 22m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.